Is 1 phase commit (ChainedTransactionManager) really necessary in this scenario vs no transaction management? - spring

Question

I have a Spring Boot application with a #JmsListener that receives a message from a queue, stores it in database and sends it to another queue.
I wanted to have a minimal transactional guarantee so 1-phase-commit works for me. After a lot of reading I found I could use the ChainedTransactionManager to coordinate the DataSource and JMS resources:
#Configuration
public class TransactionConfiguration {
#Bean
public ChainedTransactionManager transactionManager(JpaTransactionManager jpaTm, JmsTransactionManager jmsTm) {
return new ChainedTransactionManager(jmsTm, jpaTm);
}
#Bean
public JpaTransactionManager jpaTransactionManager(EntityManagerFactory emf) {
return new JpaTransactionManager(emf);
}
#Bean
public JmsTransactionManager jmsTransactionManager(ConnectionFactory connectionFactory) {
return new JmsTransactionManager(connectionFactory);
}
}
Queue listener:
#Transactional(transactionManager = "transactionManager")
#JmsListener(...)
public void process(#Payload String message) {
//Write to db
//Send to output queue
}
START MESSAGING TX
START DB TX
READ MESSAGE
WRITE DB
SEND MESSAGE
COMMIT DB TX
COMMIT MESSAGING TX
If the db commit fails the message will be reprocesed again
If the db commit succeeds but the messaging commit fails the message will be reprocessed. This it not a problem since I can guarantee the idempotency of the db write operation
Now my doubt is, let's suppose I hadn't configured the ChainedTransactionManager and the listener were like this (no #Transactional):
#JmsListener(...)
public void process(#Payload String message) {
//Write to db
//Send to output queue
}
Doesn't this behave the same as the other example despite not coordinating the commits? (I've verified that on SQL exceptions the message is redelivered)
RECEIVE MESSAGE
WRITE DB + COMMIT
SEND MESSAGE + COMMIT
If the DB commit failed the message would be reprocessed
If it succeeded and the send message operation failed it would be reprocessed again.
So is the ChainedTransactionManager really necessary in this case?
UPDATE: Debugging the Spring Boot autoconfiguration (JmsAnnotationDrivenConfiguration)...
#Bean
#ConditionalOnMissingBean(name = "jmsListenerContainerFactory")
public DefaultJmsListenerContainerFactory jmsListenerContainerFactory(
DefaultJmsListenerContainerFactoryConfigurer configurer, ConnectionFactory connectionFactory) {
DefaultJmsListenerContainerFactory factory = new DefaultJmsListenerContainerFactory();
configurer.configure(factory, connectionFactory);
return factory;
}
... the DefaultJmsListenerContainerFactoryConfigurer is configuring the factory with factory.setSessionTransacted(true); because there is no JtaTransactionManager defined:
if (this.transactionManager != null) {
factory.setTransactionManager(this.transactionManager);
}
else {
factory.setSessionTransacted(true);
}
With setSessionTransacted(true), according to the Spring doc I would get the message rollback and redelivery behaviour I need on DB (or any) exceptions:
Local resource transactions can simply be activated through the
sessionTransacted flag on the listener container definition. Each
message listener invocation will then operate within an active JMS
transaction, with message reception rolled back in case of listener
execution failure. Sending a response message (via
SessionAwareMessageListener) will be part of the same local
transaction, but any other resource operations (such as database
access) will operate independently. This usually requires duplicate
message detection in the listener implementation, covering the case
where database processing has committed but message processing failed
to commit.
That explains I'm getting the behaviour I expect without needing to configure the ChainedTransactionManager.
After all this, could you tell me if it makes sense (it adds some guarantee I'm missing) to use the ChainedTransactionManager in this case?